Threat Of Homeland Terror Attack while Obama Twiddles His Thumbs, He Is The Reason IS Still Breat

a reply to: paxnatus

Obama given detailed intelligence about rise of ISIS for a year

www.foxnews.com...

President Obama was given detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of the Islamic State as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized large swaths of territory over the summer, a former Pentagon official told Fox News.

a reply to: paxnatus

**** CORRECTION****** Keep his promise about NOT SENDING TROOPS ON THE GROUND!!!

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Good, let the government keep an eye on them. Still doesn't mean we need to put any Americans in harm's way over there.

Obama seems to want to keep troops out of the Middle East, those that are there are the moment are those that most likely never left. We'll never be completely out of the Middle East because they can't be grown adults and take care of themselves. They need 'big brother' babysitting them at all hours. Obama wanting to keep troops out of the Middle East is catering to what the majority of the U.S. wants at this point. According to usatoday, 39% of Americans think that the U.S. does to much when it comes to solving the worlds problems. www.usatoday.com...

And a CNN poll says that 63% of people polled, said they oppose the war. While 35% say that they still support the mission there. afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com...

So good for him for listening to what the majority of people want. I think he also realizes that at this point there isn't much that we can do in the Middle East. Our opinions don't matter anymore, and we've lost the Middle East. When the only problem the Middle East had was just 'who's in charge' we had so much more influence. Now their problems have changed. Now it's religious tension, 'weaker' areas within the Middle East, and people within their communities that want to do them harm. We can't really address these problems, because they are problems that they have to figure out on their own. You know when you have a friend that asks for advice but never takes your advice? It's like that. And unfortunately, we are in a situation where we will have the be the friend that comes back and helps clean up the consequences.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we need to completely rid ourselves of the Middle East, though. In the next few years, it's possible that the people within the Middle East may come to terms with a peace treaty. But that's something that they have to figure out on local terms, and something that we can't be a part of. We can't force them to do anything, just like we can never completely destroy the terrorist groups, as they will just keep reforming. The people within the Middle East need to be able to solve their own problems. And we need to look at the Middle East from another angle.

We could take the approach of just giving up on trying to solve their problems, BUT send aid (like food, water, supplies and the the like) to those who need it. By doing this, we could be possibly helping to solve some of the refugee problems within the Middle East, which while it's less ambitious on our part, we'd be helping them to help us later on down the road, without the threat of it blowing up in our faces. AND, if we're helping the refugees, that's less people getting help and being recruited by terrorist groups. Less terrorists = A good day.

We are a large portion of what is wrong with the Middle East, it's not entirely our fault that they are like this, but we are part of the problem. And dropping bombs on them, and whatever else isn't helping them. For every person we kill, terrorists kill more people. Instead of trying to take the terrorist groups out all at once, we could do it slowly. If we are helping the refugees they are more likely to help us. They likely have more information via what they hear on the grapevine than we do. And will likely share that information with us if we make it known that we're there to help them regain their power, not take out those in power, and then take the power for ourselves.

At the end of the day, we need to pull a Batman.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight." - Lt. James Gordon.

The Middle East is our Gotham. And we're gonna be a silent guardian, and a watchful protector.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Ah, i see the truth now, it's just a bigoted thing.

Nevermind, nothing else to do here. I'm not getting into a race bait discussion over this, sorry.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Thank you Lyx, for a well thought out and intelligent post! I agree with what you are saying.....with one exception..

And i am not trying to be sarcastic i just want you to think about this for a minute....

Okay this is about Obama.....First I have stated this many times in numerous threads...Back in 2012 when Obama received the Intel on ISIS, he decided they were not a threat and could wait! Even though our Military Intelligence said "Act Now" "There next move will be to advance in to Iraq".....But because it was an election year Obama ignored what was accurate and urgent information and went on to say " al Queda is decimated" I placed a vid on this a few pages back.....So, right there we know he made a major mistake by ignoring his Military Intelligence.

Second with the new rules of engagement he has done much to tie our guys hands! Foley was failed to be rescued because Obama waited 2 weeks to give the command!

Last, for now any way..Our military has a plan on how to nip this eye sore and sickness NOW! But according to Obama, once again he has decided to wait!!!! Instead he runs to the press and espouses there is no plan!!

What the hell is he doing.......he is the President not a Military specialist!! He has zero Military experience!! Evey time he has ignored the Generals advice, things have gotten worse!!

When he pulled most all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he was told to NOT withdraw the troops at ONE TIME....some forces will be needed to help stabilize the country for a while! But because the American people were war weary that fussed and complained and said enough is enough!! I was one of them....He was told if he proceeded to do things way....that extremists groups would have an easy job destabilizing the fragile government.......Yet, because Obama's popularity and politics is more important than our safety, he said NO MY " NUMBERS ARE DOWN and I NEED TO WIN THIS ELECTION !!

Why is he going against what the Military authority is telling him....If he is going to ignore everything they say then perhaps they should switch jobs!! It's ridiculous and pretty disturbing to me Makes one think Obama has another agenda in mind!!

I was hoping we could figure out what that may be! Thanks again for your post...very well done!

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Thank you Lyx, for a well thought out and intelligent post! I agree with what you are saying.....with one exception..

And i am not trying to be sarcastic i just want you to think about this for a minute....

Okay this is about Obama.....First I have stated this many times in numerous threads...Back in 2012 when Obama received the Intel on ISIS, he decided they were not a threat and could wait! Even though our Military Intelligence said "Act Now" "There next move will be to advance in to Iraq".....But because it was an election year Obama ignored what was accurate and urgent information and went on to say " al Queda is decimated" I placed a vid on this a few pages back.....So, right there we know he made a major mistake by ignoring his Military Intelligence.

Second with the new rules of engagement he has done much to tie our guys hands! Foley was failed to be rescued because Obama waited 2 weeks to give the command!

Last, for now any way..Our military has a plan on how to nip this eye sore and sickness NOW! But according to Obama, once again he has decided to wait!!!! Instead he runs to the press and espouses there is no plan!!

What the hell is he doing.......he is the President not a Military specialist!! He has zero Military experience!! Evey time he has ignored the Generals advice, things have gotten worse!!

When he pulled most all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he was told to NOT withdraw the troops at ONE TIME....some forces will be needed to help stabilize the country for a while! But because the American people were war weary that fussed and complained and said enough is enough!! I was one of them....He was told if he proceeded to do things way....that extremists groups would have an easy job destabilizing the fragile government.......Yet, because Obama's popularity and politics is more important than our safety, he said NO MY " NUMBERS ARE DOWN and I NEED TO WIN THIS ELECTION !!

Why is he going against what the Military authority is telling him....If he is going to ignore everything they say then perhaps they should switch jobs!! It's ridiculous and pretty disturbing to me Makes one think Obama has another agenda in mind!!

I was hoping we could figure out what that may be! Thanks again for your post...very well done!

Firstly, at that point, and even now, more people see Al-Qaeda as being more of a threat than ISIS. Of course, those of us who know how to do a simple search on Google know that ISIS is more of a threat than Al-Qaeda was before the 9/11 attacks. It being an election year, of course, does make you think that he ignored the idea of putting soldiers on the ground because it would put people off. But this is a long going thing. What we need to remember is that Presidents are puppets, and I think they themselves are just following orders given. From who, I have no idea. But we saw what happened to Kennedy when he tried to cut his puppet strings.
It could be a possibility that 'not having a plan' is a clever ploy to make things worse in order to get the sheeple to start supporting the mission in the Middle East again. "oh look, they are killing our people! We need to do something about this!" I'm sorry if this is too conspiracy for you, but since 9/11, I've been VERY suspicious of anything that even mentions the Middle East, even slightly. With the rumors of another attack all over the web, it even heightens my thoughts of this being part of a clever ploy.
I do think a lot of this has to do with numbers. He avoids Iraq because it's what the people want. He is catering to what the majority of Americans want. I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of Americans see the Middle East as failure. And if he sent more troops over there, you think he gets hate for everything under the sun now? You just wait.

I totally agree that things need to be done, but I also just want to be done with Iraq at this point. We should have never been there to begin with.

I also kind of wonder if maybe Obama is avoiding it because it's been documented that there are Americans fighting alongside ISIS. www.forbes.com... If word gets around to some people that HE KILLED American citizens by ordering bombings... Oh boy, that's opening an entirely different can of worms. But these people also pose a threat against us because they most likely have passports and can come and go as they wish. This is another thing that leads me to believe the articles stating that another attack is on the horizon.

I don't know why Obama is ignoring what the military has to say. But I doubt that he's the only one that has, not that it matters now. The point I'm trying to make though is that Presidents are puppets and have been for years. I really do think that this is a ploy to make people support the mission again. It's not the right way to do it, but I think that's the thing. If we have another attack, or ISIS continues to kill good people, it boosts support for the mission, as an act of revenge.

When you think about it that way, damn... We are a violent group of people.

a reply to: paxnatus

The reason why Obama wont give the go ahead is because he is a COLLABORATOR for ISL as far as I am concerned and should be charged with high gtreason

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: paxnatus

The reason why Obama wont give the go ahead is because he is a COLLABORATOR for ISL as far as I am concerned and should be charged with high gtreason

Nickel for every time we've heard "Obama's a terrorist" since he got in office.
I should be a millionaire.

originally posted by: paxnatus

originally posted by: CoolStoryMan
just went and checked the OP's thread history
filled with nothing but anti obama tripe, yet she somehow has an inside source that happens to share her viewpoint(that obama sucks).

do you really think the president of the united states is that stupid, knowing that something like that would leak, if it indeed did happen? please use your brain

Hahahaha i got a kick out of this question!! " Do you really think the President of the United states is that stupid?"!!

Uhmmmm yes i do!!!! he is very deceitful and manipulative...He is anti America and anti military!! Meaning he puts people in to combat and then does not support them!! It is sick!! Yes the white House and Obama himself were responsible for the Chief of station leak in Afghanistan!!

Please, I do not think you are up for the challenge to match wits with me.....ya know brain to brain

pax

nobody gets to be president by being that stupid, use your brain. being slow to figure out a decision is different than intentionally letting someone get killed, which was your original implication

a reply to: CoolStoryMan

Many many people think Obama is a dumb ass!! Personally, I feel he wears the Village Idiot hat of Kenya much better!!

So sorry to tell you but Mr. Obozo knew that Jim Folley's life was on the line!! Do you not the think the Generals and Colonels did everything in their power to make sure O knew what was at stake! But he was too damn busy and still is playing both sides of the field!! It would have hurt him politically!! He let corrupt politics guide his decision on this mans life!! What a coward!! And because of his further stalling, another journalist died today!!

So go on defend this fool!! Yes people get to be be president by being that stupid......Remember Carter? For heaven's sake use your brain! He was told point blank what needed to happen and yet this narcissistic clown decided he would wait uhhhhhm just one more week or maybe 2!! He was probably saying ya know Im the President I can do what I want! People must bow down to me........me........me.......it's all about me!!!!

In the meantime failure to grow a pair cost another American his life!! At the very least he could have borrowed Michele's!

originally posted by: Salamandy
a reply to: nenothtu

The same scare tactics by the government, media and those employed comfortably by the U.S. military started months ago. They were saying the same b.s. on July 31st. Well it's a month away and life hasn't really changed since I've been alive. No boogeyman, no beheadings in times square... But in did happen to notice newspaper sale going up and military contractors starting to submit bids.

Life hasn't changed since you've been alive? Kids these days! it's changed quite a lot since I've been alive - I guess if the adage that "you live and you learn" has any merit, you've just not lived long enough.

If you think that military contractors have just now started submitting bids, you just haven't been paying attention. They've been submitting bids since before I was old enough to know what a military contractor was - and that was a LONG time ago.

Just because YOU haven't seen the boogeyman doesn't mean that NONE of us have - they key is to realize that in order to see him, you have to keep your eyes open, and look where he might be. Sometimes that involves travel and a willingness to face him, qualities which i perceive you may not have lived long enough to be proficient in.

Have YOU ever seen an electron? They might not be there at all, you know, simply because you've never seen one...

So, you lose the bet. Let me guess, now you want to double down? Maybe keep parlezing until say 2101 (the 100th anniversary of 911 - something is certain to happen then!

I've lost nothing - the fat lady hasn't sung yet. I do think that your attempts at hyperbole are really amusing, though - please continue!

originally posted by: Salamandy

Did we ever catch the criminal/s who shot and or beat the American man to death? If not, go get them and keep trying. There is still plenty of time for justice to work out.

Depends on what you mean by "justice", and which guy you're talking about. If you're talking about criminal justice, i.e. law enforcement and courts, and a crime that occurred within the US, then they've probably got folks looking into that - which folks have nothing whatsoever to do with war, or the Middle East.

Americans I know have a lot more class and humanity than to strike first because of a "what if"

Gomer's Boys are no longer a "what if", and they are no longer a purely internal civil war in Syria. They are beheading folks, including kids. They are crucifying people. They are operating slave markets, buying, selling, and using as they see fit "what their right hand possesses", to be euphemisitic about it. They have taken their show on the road, crossed borders (thus no longer just a Syrian problem), declared a "caliphate" which as yet HAS no borders, but have promised to extend it across yet more borders, and have made various and sundry threats against people who CAN X them out, if they ever grow the balls and find the WILL to meet the challenge.

it's no longer a "strike first" game for the US - we're playing defense now, and playing it poorly.

originally posted by: buster2010

So we are supposed to believe a unnamed source who failed to do their job.

There is a difference between "failed to do" and "was prevented from doing".

The intel was bad because Foley was not there. This is why you need solid intel before going into a rescue mission your so called SF informant should know this.

The intel wasn't always bad - there was a window where it was valid, which Obama either failed to, or refused to, exploit. Bread and milk go "bad" too, if you leave them out too long - but that doesn't mean you should never partake of either of them.

Timing is everything.

Timing dictates whether you drink the milk, or have to chew it and suppress gagging before you swallow it.

You claim the mission had been leaked so who else has your "informant" been running his mouth to?

that's kinda silly, but it's to be expected if someone doesn't know the difference between "pre-mission" and "after action"... I bet her "informant" knows that difference.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Well seems as Bush is being brought into it, he took more vay-cay time than Obama has in his whole time in office.
Also, it's not JUST HIS job to take care of the country.. So there's that.

It seems that Obama is making "one thing perfectly clear" - that he's not the Decider, either - he seems unable to make a decision to save his ass... or anyone else's, apparently.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: paxnatus

Can you sue the President?(Im an Australian)

I think some are trying, but I think they will ultimately fail - it's that whole thing about allowing the fox to guard the hen house. It's pretty difficult to force the rules on the folks who make the rules, and even tougher to convince the folks who execute the rules to apply them to themselves.

originally posted by: CoolStoryMan

just went and checked the OP's thread history
filled with nothing but anti obama tripe, yet she somehow has an inside source that happens to share her viewpoint(that obama sucks).

No mystery there - MOST of the military thinks Obama sucks, but they realize that he's what we're stuck with for the moment.

do you really think the president of the united states is that stupid, knowing that something like that would leak, if it indeed did happen? please use your brain

Yeah, I DO think so.

You know what's even funnier?

The WHITE HOUSE is the one who "leaked" this information!

Dumb and dumber.

I guess they didn't think it through, or else thought that no one would notice or say "Wait - you had the intel, then waited for it to go stale before acting?"

I love it when a plan comes together - eh?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know, I like you, and i like your post - but I have to disagree somewhat. You seem to be approaching the problem from the same angles everyone else is - battalions of US conventional troops on the ground, or nothing at all. that's a very polarized viewpoint. I think, personally, that there is another way, a middle way, and a way which will bring results, without masses of US grunts doing door-to-door and house-to-house sweeps.

I just don't think that either of the extremes - all-in or nothing at all - is going to deliver acceptable results. I just don't think it's a conventional war, or that a conventional warfare response is going to work... nor do I think that sitting on our hands doing nothing is going to work.

Mamma always said that if I ignored them, they'd eventually go away, but in the real world I discovered that if I popped them in the back of the head with a cosh, they went away a lot sooner...

I wouldn't send in conventional troops, simply because, as my little missus has repeatedly pointed out to me, Gomer's Boys seem to WANT that response, and she can't figure out why. Here are a couple of possibilities:

1) Initiating a conventional warfare response would legitimize them - it would say to the world, and especially to warped ISIS minds that "Hey! They really ARE a state, because they warranted the response normally reserved for state actors, i.e. conventional war!" Not good, because however much they want people to think so, they are NOT a state. No point in giving them false hopes of legitimacy.

2) If they can get us there in quantity, and drag it out long enough, America will lose all of the rest of it's heart - which is one of the things they hope for, because it makes conquest so much easier. The best way to beat a foe is to beat him in his own mind, because he essentially beats himself for you. That is the entire focus of asymmetrical warfare.

I think that the only reliable approach is to out-guerrilla the guerrillas. NO ONE can do that better than the SpecOps community - it's what they do!

a reply to: paxnatus

If you're looking for fool-heardy, knee-jerk ineffective reactions I'm afraid you're one adminstration too late. But you should have been here when this country was run by lying war criminals. Man...those were the days.

a reply to: TownCryer

Exactly right - THIS administration is becoming better known for foolhardy, dead-knee ineffective NON-action (well, except in the cases of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, etc - and that seriously not sane attempt to convince us that sending troops into Syria was somehow a good idea). The end results are the same or worse, but hey, it's all about the path we take destruction, rather than the destruction itself, eh?

I like the "war criminals" accusation - there seems to be a lot of that going around, which I suspect is where you get it from. One place I can guarantee that you DON'T get it from is International Law - law, you know, that thing that makes stuff actually "illegal" and "criminal", without which there is no criminality. "Stupidity" is not illegal under international law - if it were, we'd have to execute a whole lot of people, maybe 3/4 or more of the whole human race. The last administration (in common with THIS one, apparently) was excessively stupid, but not criminal under any actual law, much less International Law - you know, that sort of law that defines "War Criminal" in the first place.